"I understand the sentiment behind them and 1st Amendment rights, but it’s a bad message.... I hope it’s just people venting that they could do this, and I’m hoping their calmness will take over. It’s our job to keep you safe.... I understand that people want to fight back after Orlando... But there are ways to do that without a gun."

Said Capt. Holly Perez of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department West Hollywood Station.

"[T]he best way to shoot back is to enact serious change to our gun policy.... We need an outright ban on all assault weapons and better protections to keep all guns away from bad people."

Said David Cooley, who owns the Abbey Food & Bar, which the L.A. Times calls "a well-known gay lounge" (and long-time readers of this blog may remember as the location of a meet-up with commenters in 2008).

I agree that it would be great to "keep all guns away from bad people," but where do you draw the good/bad line when it comes to human beings, how could the government figure out who goes on which side of that line, and how do you ensure that the government's process isn't an intrusion worse than any incremental improvement that could be achieved?

Here's the flag. Let's analyze it:

"Shoot back" refers to self-defense, and — despite Perez's "I’m hoping their calmness will take over" — it could be interpreted as already calm. The rattlesnake in the original Gadsden flag said "Don't tread on me." That is, I'm prepared to respond to an attack. Is there not calmness in knowing you are prepared?

A street artist in Los Angeles who said he is a spokesman for the group responsible for the posters spoke exclusively to PJ Media on Thursday. Sabo, who was behind the tattooed "Blacklisted and Lovin' It" Ted Cruz posters that appeared in Hollywood back in 2014, said... "it's important that people know that this image came out of the gay community"... "Continuing to deny where the threat is coming from will not help keep this community safe.... The gay community needs to realize that the police are there to respond, not protect.... It is all of our responsibilities to be able to protect ourselves and our families. We can not do that if our elected officials disarm us"....

122 comments:

It's time for people who just want to ban gun to just say so out loud.

That's what most of these people want, right? That's why Democrats aren't bothered about denying people due process if they've been investigated by the FBI (for terrorism now, but surely that can grow with simple regulations). So what if millions of people are mistakenly on the list? Denying guns to too many people is a feature. Denying guns to pretty much everyone is the goal. No?

“We don’t believe in an eye for an eye, and we advocate against gun violence.”

So, she is advocating for the police to be disarmed? Because, they shoot back too.

I forget who said it, Bill Buckley perhaps, but there is a moral difference between someone pushing an old lady into the path of an oncoming train and someone pushing her out of the path of one. The essential fact is not that they are both pushing old ladies around.

"It’s our job to keep you safe..." No, it's not. You are not physically capable of it. Quit promising to do it. When you inevitably fail, you will just shrug and mumble excuses. And the new dead will be just as dead as the old dead.

Those are three pretty pathetic comments. First, don't get mad, be sad from the mayor. Then we have role up n a ball and wait (three hours) for the police from the Chief. Finally, why can't we have laws that will allow the state to protect me perfectly so bad things never happen ever again from the bar owner.

I read this morning that Obama visited Orlando and condemned gun culture. I'm not an Obama-hater, and I don't blame democrat representatives for making this a gun issue, but I find Obama's actions here as president to be despicable and it's reflecting terribly on Clinton too.

We are at war with ISIS. War. We have had soldiers die on front lines, we are conducting active bombing campaigns, we are fighting them online, financially, we are trying to build coalitions.

An American swore allegiance to ISIS and massacred some of our people. Yes, he was American. So were the americans who Obama targeted for drone strike (possibly illegally) and who were working with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

There is nothing unique about an American working against our country. It does not turn a terrorist attack into a domestic issue.

The worst attack on American soil by a terrorist since 9/11, conducted by someone who swore allegiance to an enemy we are at war with, and it's made into a gun control issue.

Despicable lack of leadership. Despicable refusal to identify the enemy not as our own policies, but as a foreign ideology and group. Despicable use of a massacre to promote a pre-existing agenda.

Ann said "but where do you draw the good/bad line when it comes to human beings, how could the government figure out who goes on which side of that line. . ."As many of us had said before, if you could effectively take guns away from all Democrats (including this latest monster) you would eliminate between 80-90% of illegal homicides.The reason non-Democrats are so in favor of the 2nd Amendment is so we have a means of protecting ourselves from Democrats.

I understand that people want to fight back after Orlando... But there are ways to do that without a gun."

Fight back? BS. Be able to protect ones self and loved ones? Absolutely!

"[T]he best way to shoot back is to enact serious change to our gun policy.... We need an outright ban on all assault weapons and better protections to keep all guns away from bad people."

Right! The thousands of existing gun laws work so well, lets enact a few dozen more!

The willful blindness of those that are in opposition to the 2nd A is a source of constant amazement to me.

The same people (generally) that are against guns because they are "dangerous" are the same people that want more government (people with guns), no restrictions or limitations on abortion (that costs adults and babies lives daily), and want little to no restrictions on what drugs someone can put into their bodies (I am in agreement with this one).

The 2nd A exists to allow citizens the ability to protect themselves from the tyranny of "others" be those others the government or other persons intent on doing them harm.

Generally these same people that want "reasonable" restrictions on guns will cotton NO restrictions on abortion.

I understand that people want to fight back after Orlando... But there are ways to do that without a gun."

Said Capt. Holly Perez of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department West Hollywood Station.

..he said, with a pistol at his hip.I mean, yeah, of course HE should have a gun, but not you smelly untrustworthy civilians. Leave self-defense to the professionals, people, just be calm and unarmed and peaceful...if someone starts trying to murder you just give the Sheriff and Mayor a call, they'll take care of it.

I agree that it would be great to "keep all guns away from bad people," but where do you draw the good/bad line when it comes to human beings,

We used to think that a person who went to church regularly and did good deeds was a good person. But over on the Althouse poll ("Have Christians Created a Harmful Atmosphere for Gays?") we learn that 99 out of 1651 respondents (almost 6%) think otherwise, and in particular 2.4% of the respondents are convinced that Christians are downright e-e-e-e-e-vil. I think as a nation we need square ourselves around and square our thinking around.

how could the government figure out who goes on which side of that line, and how do you ensure that the government's process isn't an intrusion worse than any incremental improvement that could be achieved?

You can't. That's what responsible gun-owners and thoughtful people who aren't gun owners have been saying for a while. You can't really even succeed in banning guns in a country where there are probably more guns than people.

Gays have a natural and unalienable right to self-defense just as straights do. No firearms instructor asks about sexual orientation before teaching a person how to shoot and how to choose the right gun for them and their situation.

RNB said..."It’s our job to keep you safe..." No, it's not. You are not physically capable of it.

And what's more, the courts have been explicit that the police have no duty to protect any particular person form any particular harm. Nice catch, I should have included that in my earlier "too stupid for words" post.

I can see how the owner of The Abbey isn't excited about the idea of more guns. Guns and alcohol don't mix.But a lot of this is Democrats speaking as Gay, trying to make sure Gay people stay with the party.

Anybody else notice how weird it is to hear the Left keep calling the AR-15 a "weapon of war" while insisting that our police forces need them?Like, I thought you guys were against the militarization of the police, right? So why do you want the police to have lots of "weapons of war?" That doesn't make any sense.

Oh, you know what? Probably it's a stupid principle-compromising admission--they WANT to say "AR-15s are weapons of war and have no place in our country except in the hands of soldiers" but the fact that there are THOUSANDS of them in use by cops all over the country makes that untenable...so instead they just insist that cops should regularly use "weapons of war" in their daily work.

Self protection from Jihadist Muslim attackers who carry a full panoply of weaponry works better with weapons of our own...like a Militia. The disarming of Americans is an enemy's act. So Obama immediately pushing our disarmament over all things is to be expected.

This really is what it's coming to: We [they] are disturbed by the words, "shoot back." Why?

Do they actually want people not to shoot back if someone's trying to kill them? Judging from Bill Clinton's and President Obama's comments yesterday, yes: They really believe people trapped inside a building with a homicidal maniac roaming at will for three hours would be worse off if someone shot back. That's just common sense to them.

More than that, though, I think it's the sentiment that offends them. They want us to just keep on wishing the problem away. Sure, every now and then someone will be violently confronted with the fact that they can't. But the rest of us, won't we just be happier, won't it be a better society if we just wish really hard that we won't have to fight?

Ironically, they think their opponents are the only ones willing to endure the deaths of innocents in pursuit of their preferred society.

Orlando SWAT killed 8 or so of the 49 dead and wounded as many as twenty more in their rescue effort. They are doing a fine job of keeping us all safe. And that was after a three-hour wait coming up with a plan of attack!

Fast and Furious gave auto-weapons to Mexican gangs in order to engineer a US gun ban with the bad press. We are now flooding the country with enemies of the US, probably to engineer a US gun ban with the bad press.

“I pledge my alliance to [ISIS leader] abu bakr al Baghdadi..may Allah accept me. The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west. . . . You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes..now taste the Islamic state vengeance.” -- wrote Omar Mateen, on Facebook.

Yet we're supposed to disregard this all-too-obvious statement regarding his motivation, and search desperately for some, any, other motivation?

"where do you draw the good/bad line . . . how could the government figure out who goes on which side of that line, and how do you ensure that the government's process isn't an intrusion worse than any incremental improvement" You're so sweet sometimes, asking all these reasonable questions, sounding so fair and balanced, taking propositions as proposals worthy of reasonable analysis. But in the face of a Prog attack, in which every proposition is a mere power play and the imposition of Prog rule is the only goal, such reasonableness is itself unreasonable.

Go over to the Daily Mail. The number has been thrown around since Monday when the police made the admission that some of the dead may have been shot by police after the infill.

I've been wondering because the timeline is so murky. I know he was holed up in the bathroom with "hostages", but haven't heard he started shooting at them again, even though I saw a video today of people who were in the bathroom but didn't make it out alive.

I'm a strong believer in the 2nd amendment. I'll probably be going out and purchasing an AR-15 , FN90, or similar in the not-too-distant future.

That being said, I've strongly considered the case for wide-ranging availability of high capacity carbines (i.e. greater than, say, 7-10 rounds). Prior to this shooting, I was not a fan of restricting them. But it's made me consider and re-consider it.

I'm now of the opinion that they should be restricted to a separate class of weapon, similar to how silencers and automatic weapons are (albeit without the ridiculous license fees those require).

It is wholly true that an AR-15, Sig MCX, FN90 still offer the same semi-auto fire rate of any normal semi-auto pistol. Their offer the same rounds as many hunting rifles. Etc.

But they were designed for something different. They are not made or optimized for self-defense. They are not made or optimized for hunting. In a crowded room, the rounds they use penetrate better - combined with their capacity - to create a weapon just a little bit more of a public threat than their availability benefits.

I don't believe in eliminating freedom, but perhaps there is room for them to be classed differently than walking into a gun store and buying a handgun for self-defense. Whether that manifests as a longer waiting period, required educational classes, or a special license and deeper background check - I don't want to recommend a specific combination.

But these weapons do not serve the public interest and personal freedom that a hunting rifle, shotgun, or handgun offer. They truly were first and foremost designed for warfare conditions.

When he was washing his hands (as several witnesses stated) it might have been a good time to pounce on him and turn him into mush against the porcelain sink. But I am no expert and you'd have to stop texting to do that.

Treejoe,I agree with their particular utility in the specific, though rare case of killing large numbers of unarmed people. It seems to me they are good for 2x at least of the potential hit rate of most other gun options, should ones purpose be mass murder, all else being equal. Shooting one, plinking, will probably convince most. On the other hand they are likewise the arms best suited, in the current state of technology and society, to the constitutional purpose of threatening the government and its personnel.The proper solution ultimately is a tradeoff where the second amendment is replaced with something else, while balanced by some massive reduction in the ability to assert regulatory powers. I suggest a whole lot of modifications in the constitution to strengthen states rights, to give them the ability to override or block Federal laws and especially regulations on nearly all domestic matters.

“I pledge my alliance to [ISIS leader] abu bakr al Baghdadi..may Allah accept me. The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west. . . . You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes..now taste the Islamic state vengeance.” -- wrote Omar Mateen, on Facebook.

Yet we're supposed to disregard this all-too-obvious statement regarding his motivation, and search desperately for some, any, other motivation?

************

Yet if the perp "self-identified" as a woman, Baraka and the left would tell us we need to take him at his word!!

But these weapons do not serve the public interest and personal freedom that a hunting rifle, shotgun, or handgun offer. They truly were first and foremost designed for warfare conditions.

The revolutionary war was won in no small part by citizen-soldiers with personal rifles, against professional British and mercenary Hessian soldiers equipped with government-issued smooth bore muskets.

In other words, the citizens in this scenario had superior technology to that of the standard militaries of the day.

Exactly why should that same situation not be allowed to prevail today? The nature of tyrrany hasn't changed.

They were designed to be less powerful than the existing semi-automatic M1 Garand and the M 14 version of it which could be fired on automatic mode. Recoil of the 30-06 cartridge was too great to fire auto.

The AR 15 was designed by a civilian designer and adopted by the army as the M 16. The cartridge is less powerful and lighter, which fit the new requirements.

The fact that it is modular and can be converted to other calibers allows more civilian options.

Hmmm...Obama/ Clinton/ DNC/ MSM turn this into a gun control issue when a home-grown, ISIS supporting terrorist slaughters almost 50 people in a gay nightclub.

What other story lines are out there? Unsuccessful terrorist watch? PC avoidance of obvious trouble signs with this man (see Major Hasan at Fort Hood)? Responsible and legally compliant behavior by gun dealers? Need for citizen self-defense? Uneasy relationship between devout Islam and gay community? Internet radicalization of Muslim American youth?

Nah--further gun control. That's the ticket!!

The harmony among Obama/Clinton/ DNC/ MSM is the reason I don't believe anything I hear or see in MSM at face value. Disgusting.

A perfectly fine compromise would be an AR-style system, could be just as modular, etc., with a fixed magazine fed by stripper clips (actual clips) like the Mauser C96 pistol and so many other old military guns. It would keep nearly all the utility of the current systems while reducing the reload rate. I wonder that no-one has made such a weapon for the CA and NY markets.

Instapundit: "Remember, none of this is about saving lives. It’s about the cultural domination of the people in flyover country, by their coastal “betters” who get a near-erotic thrill out of such domination, and who are reduced to blind rage whenever their efforts at domination fail."

It was in one of those lecture disks I borrow from the library. Modern Scholar or The Great Courses? Some audiobook? Anyway: "From an evolutionary point of view, if you don't reproduce, you don't exist."

Here's some wild speculation. Maybe the ulterior motive behind posting the rainbow Gadsden flag (most likely unwitting) is to get largely non-reproducing gene-carriers to commit altruism to make it safer for the replication of other genes. Sort of analogous to brood parasitism. Hey you! Go invest resources that benefit my genes! Risk your life eliminating that guy who might someday limit my reproductive fitness!

I think I read a ways back, somewhere, some theory about how gayness is a strategy of concentrating resources and maximizing efficiency. Sort of like how animals who have fewer offspring take better care of them. Many hands make light work.

But that was a long time ago, and I'm kind of an idiot, so maybe I should get back to work.

buwaya puti said...A perfectly fine compromise would be an AR-style system, could be just as modular, etc., with a fixed magazine fed by stripper clips (actual clips) like the Mauser C96 pistol and so many other old military guns. It would keep nearly all the utility of the current systems while reducing the reload rate. I wonder that no-one has made such a weapon for the CA and NY markets.

They have! Look up "bullet button California." Manufacturers can make "regular" firearms CA-compliant in part by making the magazines non-removable. The precise definition of non-removable is a bit tricky, though...so what these smart fellas did is make a button that can drop the "fixed" mag when the button was depressed w/a bullet or similarly-shaped tool (as I'm sure you know most of the pins, etc, on the AR platform are designed such that they can be manipulated using only a spare round as a tool).

Anyway some manufacturers certainly have modified standard firearms to have non-detachable magazines for compliance reasons. The market is much smaller, though, so those are more niche items. In practical terms, of course, these measures don't do much to make the weapons themselves less potentially lethal...and anyway the anti-gun folks don't see your proposal as "common sense."

You're thinking and trying to come up with an actual compromise, which is commendable, but not what the anti-gun folks really want.

I have a question for ARM.If you're in favor of more restrictive gun control over the citizens of the United States. (which wouldn't have helped in the case of Orlando because the terrorist was a licensed security guard and had ready access to weapons anyway.) Then you must agree that the police should be covered by the same restrictions.

Sad fact: during the "hostage phase" of this particular attack several of the people in the club had the ability to take cell phone footage of the murderer. I just saw some on CNN (in my building's elevator). That's all they had available to them--cell phones.

Bill Clinton's bullshit about "it was too dark for anyone to shoot back" should be mocked. It was bright enough, and they had time enough, to shoot video of this murderer...but they had no weapons and that's all they could do.

When you can't provide for your own security and defense you put yourself at the mercy of others. Personally I find a moral framework that REQUIRES others to place themselves at the mercy of others disgusting, but as long as you don't force me to abide by that (through the Law) I'm happy to let it be your own problem.

I don't think any adult should fully depend on nothing more than the kindness of strangers w/r/t their own personal safety (and the safety of their families & loved ones). I certainly don't think members of "at-risk" groups should. People who demand that vulnerable people should remain vulnerable disgust me. That the Media holds such people up as examples of "goodness" cements my distaste for the Media.

Don't listen to the Media, homosexuals. Be aware, be safe, and when practical be armed.

buwaya puti said...A perfectly fine compromise would be an AR-style system, could be just as modular, etc., with a fixed magazine fed by stripper clips (actual clips) like the Mauser C96 pistol and so many other old military guns. It would keep nearly all the utility of the current systems while reducing the reload rate. I wonder that no-one has made such a weapon for the CA and NY markets.

No, it wouldn't. The AR-15/M-16 has an ejection port on the right side of the upper receiver. You can't load something like that with stripper clips.

"No, it wouldn't. The AR-15/M-16 has an ejection port on the right side of the upper receiver. You can't load something like that with stripper clips."

So, put the ejection port on top like the M1, M14 and nearly every military rifle till the 1950's. And a stripper clip guide. If you want to keep the top clear for optics, how about a separate loading port, since there is room for one with a fixed magazine - see the Krag. There are a lot of other ways to skin this cat.

" Manufacturers can make "regular" firearms CA-compliant in part by making the magazines non-removable."

Correct, and upcoming legislation will probably block this "loophole", probably by banning removable magazines on semi-auto rifles entirely. It would be interesting how that works on fancy rifles like the Browning BAR (with a 4-round mag!).

The NRA should set up a storefront or a booth in West Hollywood and start signing up homosexuals and training them to defend themselves.

--------------------------------

This is the way we handle it down here in TN:

"A group of three businessmen decided that they would pay the cost of 30 slots in a handgun carry permit class at the Nashville Armory and then donate the spaces to members of the LGBTQ community who wanted to take the course.

When capitain Perez and the mayor accept personal liability for failure to protect then I'll take them seriously-but they better have huge liability coverage. If the gun banners want to ban guns then ban all guns for everyone. Unarmed police and no government official is allowed armed protection. The hired help don't deserve more protection than their employers. And to avoid the hypocrisy no armed protection for celebrities.

But these weapons do not serve the public interest and personal freedom that a hunting rifle, shotgun, or handgun offer. They truly were first and foremost designed for warfare conditions.

Mentioned in the 2nd Amendment: The militia.

NOT mentioned in the 2nd Amendment: Hunting parties.

Once you aid and abet the left in re-framing the whole argument away from Islamic Jihad, and onto the scapegoating of military "style" (note, lefties, I said "style" not "function") weapons, and get them banned, the left will immediately move onto banning your "not covered by the 2nd Amendment" hunting rifles and shotguns. Don't fall for it!

Keep in mind that the two people we are talking about are protected, at taxpayer expense, by machine gun toting Secret Service agents.

Which gets me to something that is a bit scary - the federal govt. now apparently has more armed or firearm trained and licensed civilian employees than there active duty Marines. We are talking roughly 200k armed civilian employees, in pretty much every department. This is a massive increase under Obama.

Stopping a violent criminal or deadly terrorist from gouging out an eye is not an eye for an eye. It is, in fact, the polar opposite: protecting an innocent eye from an assault.

Those who cannot differentiate between offensive violent conduct, which is an infraction against the rights of individuals, and defense of self or others, which is an inherent, inalienable, individual human right, have no business in this discussion.

Why not a top ejection port for modern sporting firearms like the AR-15? Ever note where you sight the guns? Mostly on the top, which top ejection would interfere with.

I had a long post that I duplicated a couple times over the last couple days that started out asking how you would like being limited to 1950s vintage automobiles because fewer people died back then from car crashes (ignoring that the death toll per capita or per mile was much higher). That is essentially what anyone asking us to give up AR-15s and other modern sporting rifles and carbines is demanding. Firearms technology has advanced significantly since the introduction of the AR-15, and its military descendants (M-16 and M-4 carbine), some 55 years ago. We are talking significant advances in materials, modularity, ergonomics, weight, etc. AR-15s are far easier to shoot accurately, have low recoil, and are highly modular and configurable.

buwaya puti, your request for a stripper-clip fixed magazine semiauto was developed way back in 1945 by the Soviets, and is called the SKS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS

Truly there is nothing new under the sun. Many were imported to the US since the fall of the USSR. During 2003 the Yugo SKS carbines were advertised for as low as $89 each. And the ammo could be purchased in packs of 1000 rounds each for about $100.

Has an SKS ever been used in a mass murder in the US? Yes, once, in 2001, according to a list compiled here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein

I note in passing that the convicted criminal who did that owned these weapons illegally, so good luck with that banning thing.

"Don't tread on me" must give "liberals" and other State-shtuppers the fantods. You know, because their whole philosophy and agenda consists of treading on people (tax-payers, peaceful gun-owners, businessmen, etc.).

Yes indeed. There's no reason the SKS can't ride again. Or that someone could design an AR/SKS hybrid, all in black or whatever is fashionable, with lots of places to screw on flashlights and things. I do think though that the SKS was easily modified to use removable magazines.The 2001 Navistar shooting is otherwise reported as involving an AK47, but who knows. It was a "going postal" situation where a disgruntled employee killed four. Four isn't as bad as 49.

The way to fight back is to huddle underneath a table, screaming and sobbing or trying not to scream and sob, until the West Hollywood station of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office can show up to put your body in a bag. - Captain Holly Perez

We don't believe in you doing anything but getting slaughtered. If you try to protect yourself, that's revenge and we aren't about that here in West Hollywood. We are about innocent people getting slaughtered. - Mayor Lauren Meister

The best way to shoot back is to not shoot back, it is to die so people can like me can bitch about guns. Sorry. I'd prefer you dead to alive if the reason you're alive is you or someone had a gun and used it to defend yourself and others. - David Cooley.

That is what these 3 sick people are really saying. All 3 of them are very perverse individuals who'd rather see bodies stacked like cordwood than see someone stop a killer by using a gun.

Some people would rather feel morally superior over your corpse than have you use a gun to protect yourself.

I occasionally have the discussion with "folks" that are against guns to the affect of: OK, you don't want people to have guns. How many women are you willing to see raped and killed each year for your "gun free" country to become a reality? What is the actual number? If as liberals tell us, we are supposed to not do so many things "for the children" or "if it saves one life, isn't it worth it". Well then, same goes for honest citizens with guns. So, how many more dead (updated for today) gays and women are you willing to accept as the price for no civilian ownership of guns.

Don't let them get off saying "but the opposite is look how many get killed today with things the way they are". Strawman! Gun crimes are committed by criminals. They are already breaking the law, so how many women and gay deaths is your gun-free utopia worth to you in actual numbers?

Hoplophobia is a political neologism coined by retired American military officer Jeff Cooper as a pejorative to describe an "irrational aversion to weapons."[1][2][3] It is also used to describe the "fear of firearms"[4][5] or the "fear of armed citizens."

A photographer with the Dallas Advocate was hit in the head by a rock thrown by an anti-Trump protester Thursday night outside a Dallas, Texas campaign rally at Gilley’s by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

@pst314, there's that. So many of the quotes in the article bothered me deeply.

"I understand that people want to fight back after Orlando,” [police Capt. Holly Perez] said. “But there are ways to do that without a gun."

Not when there's a guy with a gun firing in your direction! The only thing that will keep you alive in that scenario is a gun of your own (or maybe Superman bounding through the door).

West Hollywood Mayor Lauren Meister said of the posters. “We don’t believe in an eye for an eye ...”

Actually, "an eye for an eye" is already illegal. Anyone who's looked at the laws relating to self defense is aware that once you've neutralized the immediate threat you have to stop shooting. You can't shoot a guy who's running away (except if there is someone else in his path in mortal danger from that person). You can't show up at the shooter's house a couple days later, stick a shotgun in his face, and say "This is for my friend Ed." It is perfectly legal to shoot someone who is threatening you with deadly force -- as a country we haven't sunk so low that we aren't allowed to defend ourselves.

Not yet, anyway.

"It’s our job to keep you safe.”

And the police did such a good job keeping the people in San Jose who attended the Trump rally safe, didn't they just?

"The proper solution ultimately is a tradeoff where the second amendment is replaced with something else, while balanced by some massive reduction in the ability to assert regulatory powers. I suggest a whole lot of modifications in the constitution to strengthen states rights, to give them the ability to override or block Federal laws and especially regulations on nearly all domestic matters."

You know, when I read the Constitution and the enumerated rights, I see the states rights you propose already in existence. If it ain't in here, it belongs to the States.....

So you want to recreate that wheel and will trust that the words will hold this time. All you ask is that the 2A be watered down (likely to irrelevance) and trust, trust, trust.

Gun grabbers, they’re all alike. They SAY they believe in freedom but there’s always a “but.”

A question: How many rounds of ammo does a gun-grabber believe I should have in my gun? Six? A dozen? What if I shoot in self defense but miss with my first 12 rounds? Am I then just shit out of luck and doomed to die?

I never take seriously any rhetoric about guns from gun-grabbers when they demonstrate they know nothing about the issue. A sure “tell” is if they talk about the shooters and their “assault” rifles. There has been NO “assault” rifles used in ANY of these shootings we’ve had in the past 10 years. None. Zip. Zero.

The gun-grabbers MUST wrongfully label these weapons as “assault” weapons, otherwise they would have no rationale for grabbing them. If they can successfully sell that lie they can then claim with what they believe to be a moral imperative that civilians should not have them.

The proper solution ultimately is a tradeoff where the second amendment is replaced with something else, while balanced by some massive reduction in the ability to assert regulatory powers.

Readers, they say over and over that they do NOT want to take our guns. Such a thing NEVER crosses their minds – they say. But as we can see here they are NOT overly fond of that pesky second amendment and would love to get just rid of it, once and for all.

So, put the ejection port on top like the M1, M14 and nearly every military rifle till the 1950's. And a stripper clip guide.

Sure. I’m gonna allow a gun-grabber to dictate the design of my self-defense weapon. Just after hell freezes over.

It is the only viable solution. People need to protect themselves as police cannot and will not do so.

That's what most of these people want, right? That's why Democrats aren't bothered about denying people due process if they've been investigated by the FBI (for terrorism now, but surely that can grow with simple regulations). So what if millions of people are mistakenly on the list? Denying guns to too many people is a feature. Denying guns to pretty much everyone is the goal. No?

Will a Republican have the guts to add a rider expanding that ban to voting as well?

An American swore allegiance to ISIS and massacred some of our people. Yes, he was American. So were the americans who Obama targeted for drone strike (possibly illegally) and who were working with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

He was American by a method a lot of Americans find abhorrent. "Birth right citizenship" is a disaster with no Constitutional basis behind it.

Right! The thousands of existing gun laws work so well, lets enact a few dozen more!

And let's have wide open borders, too. Officials in strict control states whine that "guns from states with lower gun control flood our state", ignoring that the same thing occurs in regards to people from other countries. Guns illegal here are a little more prevalent elsewhere and we know ICE is doing nothing.

The Left whines about how "gin rights nuts" are unwilling to compromise on guns --- yet their desire to compromise on abortion is markedly lower, it should be noted. Sacred cows gotta be spared.

Like, I thought you guys were against the militarization of the police, right? So why do you want the police to have lots of "weapons of war?" That doesn't make any sense.

We've also been told, ad infinitum, that police are racist and kill black folks for no reason.

"It’s our job to keep you safe.... I understand that people want to fight back after Orlando... But there are ways to do that without a gun."

No, it's not your job to keep people safe. Because you can't do it. The police and the government aren't there for anybody's protection. They exist to say "don't do this" and then to clean up the mess after they are disregarded. That middle part, where the protecting comes in, that's entirely up to you.

Another elected official who doesn't understand how the government actually works.

Good news: Firearm sales in Florida have doubled since the Orlando terrorist shootings. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/politics/os-orlando-shootings-gun-sales-20160616-story.html